Posted by ericlinder on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):of course, people have freedom to believe but they go over the line when they disrespect separation of religion and govt and try to hide this by using terms like values when it is really religion..this is what fundamentalists do here..elsewhere they use violence.

You're right, forget the founding fathers and what they stood for . Let's throw out the entire constitution, bill of rights, **** even the declaration of independence needs to be tossed because it was their idea. Nothing they represented should be upheld by modern government.

if they had slaves should we have slaves?

Comparing religious beliefs to slavery is quite a stretch. People have a right to their religious beliefs, but not the right to have slaves.

religion does noy belong as a factor in enacitng laws in a secular democratic republic and using religion as so called national values does not transform it into a non religious value...the founding fathers are admired..they are not the deciders from their graves as to what is right or wrong in our world now.

Posted by ericlinder on 7/16/2013 6:06:00 PM (view original):religion does noy belong as a factor in enacitng laws in a secular democratic republic and using religion as so called national values does not transform it into a non religious value...the founding fathers are admired..they are not the deciders from their graves as to what is right or wrong in our world now.

religion does noy belong as a factor in enacitng laws in a secular democratic republic

Clearly the founding fathers and many others have disagreed, but those with agendas love to pick and choose whatever fits those agendas. When confronted, they'll deny they have any agenda and simply claim they're "doing what is right". For example, this type of statement is often made by those with an atheist agenda that I'm sure will be denied if anyone having said agenda responds to this statement I'm making right now.

using religion as so called national values does not transform it into a non religious value.

Individuals can have whatever set of values they want to have. If the vast majority of a collective population have the same essential set of values, THAT is what makes those values essentially become "national values". It doesn't matter if they have to do with religion or not.

What bothers me is when people want to go against the wishes of the vast majority of people by trying to make the argument about something that is irrelevant. Saying the collective values of the majority of people shouldn't matter because they may have used religion to form those values would be like saying votes in an election shouldn't count if someone cast their ballot based upon their religious belief - it's just patently absurd.

The founding fathers had nothing to do with In god we trust being on our currency.

No, they didn't. However, the founding fathers DID establish the precedent of including religion in government, and that is the point. When "In God We Trust" was placed on currency during the Civil War era, that never could have happened if there hadn't been such a precedent set.

If you disagree, imagine if those words were not already on some currency and the government attempted to add them TODAY - the radical atheists would descend onto Washington like angry bees from a battered hive (a good metaphor except the bees actually produce something while the radical atheists just seek to destroy things).

I guess I am techncally atheist but I do not identfy with them bc I just do not care to be part of a group based on what I think about god. But I do not protest religious things either bc thats just being stupid. I say let ppl do what they want its not harming me if in god we trust is on money or if some religious things on on govt property. Honestly too many ppl get too worked up about what amoutns to nothing. And if ppl form their values from religion so what its their choice.

Like I said I don't think gays shold marry either and that not a religous idea for me but a practical one bc two dudes or two chicks just not supposed to be together but I never say it in public except on the internet bc I don't ppl to hate me or give me problems. The lesson I learn is ppl will do what they want anyway and objecting won't get you anything but problems so I leave it alone for most part.

Posted by shawnfucious on 7/17/2013 9:33:00 AM (view original):I guess I am techncally atheist but I do not identfy with them bc I just do not care to be part of a group based on what I think about god. But I do not protest religious things either bc thats just being stupid. I say let ppl do what they want its not harming me if in god we trust is on money or if some religious things on on govt property. Honestly too many ppl get too worked up about what amoutns to nothing. And if ppl form their values from religion so what its their choice.

Like I said I don't think gays shold marry either and that not a religous idea for me but a practical one bc two dudes or two chicks just not supposed to be together but I never say it in public except on the internet bc I don't ppl to hate me or give me problems. The lesson I learn is ppl will do what they want anyway and objecting won't get you anything but problems so I leave it alone for most part.

You say you let people do what they want when it isn't harming you but in the very next paragraph you say you don't think gays should marry.

Don't worry about BL, shawn, he will defend the homosexual agenda to the end. He's stubborn but it's not hard to argue circles around him if you want to - in fact, it can be great entertainment and quite fun if you have some time you need to kill or just want to watch him squirm.

Posted by shawnfucious on 7/17/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):What do you mean which is it? Its both at the same time. Funny I don't remember the govt making a law saying I can't have two diff opinions on two diff topics.

I do not care if god is on money or ppl want religious **** on govt buildings or whatever, but I don't think gay ppl should marry bc I think being gay is not natural and is to me quite disgusting.

So I guess you don't want to let people do what they want, even when it doesn't harm you.

Posted by shawnfucious on 7/17/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):What do you mean which is it? Its both at the same time. Funny I don't remember the govt making a law saying I can't have two diff opinions on two diff topics.

I do not care if god is on money or ppl want religious **** on govt buildings or whatever, but I don't think gay ppl should marry bc I think being gay is not natural and is to me quite disgusting.

So I guess you don't want to let people do what they want, even when it doesn't harm you.

Posted by shawnfucious on 7/17/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):What do you mean which is it? Its both at the same time. Funny I don't remember the govt making a law saying I can't have two diff opinions on two diff topics.

I do not care if god is on money or ppl want religious **** on govt buildings or whatever, but I don't think gay ppl should marry bc I think being gay is not natural and is to me quite disgusting.

So I guess you don't want to let people do what they want, even when it doesn't harm you.

No I am fine with ppl doing what they want if it doesn't harm me but when it disgusts me to the point I want to hurl I consider that to be harming me.

Posted by shawnfucious on 7/17/2013 2:51:00 PM (view original):What do you mean which is it? Its both at the same time. Funny I don't remember the govt making a law saying I can't have two diff opinions on two diff topics.

I do not care if god is on money or ppl want religious **** on govt buildings or whatever, but I don't think gay ppl should marry bc I think being gay is not natural and is to me quite disgusting.

So I guess you don't want to let people do what they want, even when it doesn't harm you.

LOL. A new low, even for you. Attempting to argue with a retard.

All you do is try to talk down to ppl you disagree with tecwrg and its pretty frickin annoying. You are not better than anyhone so scuk it.